Zasteva:You see, if you get poor people out of poverty then they might be able to give their kids a good education without special government education programs. That would mean ending GOOD programs, so it would be BAD.

I'm entirely for funding preschool education and all kinds of education through borrowing. That isn't the same as funding welfare through borrowing.

Zasteva:clane: If Obama doesn't get his way he acts like the spoiled liberal Socialist brat that he is.This was not even a cut but i am sure you don't even know that...He lied over and over again trying to hide that this was his idea......Seriously i watch NBC, CNN/HLN and FOX, CNN and NBC lie and pound the drums for the Democrats, FOX explains the truth. THE TRUTH

MattStafford:Zasteva: You see, if you get poor people out of poverty then they might be able to give their kids a good education without special government education programs. That would mean ending GOOD programs, so it would be BAD.

I'm entirely for funding preschool education and all kinds of education through borrowing. That isn't the same as funding welfare through borrowing.

Even though evidence shows that welfare programs are better for the economy than nothing?

MattStafford:I honestly don't understand how so many people can be so willfully ignorant of an obvious truth. If you borrow money, you better use it for something good, or it is going to suck when you have to pay it back. The fact that you might be a sovereign country has no bearing on that universal, immutable truth.

Actually, paying back money sucks whether or not it's used for something good.

MattStafford:Ctrl-Alt-Del: Borrowing to educate kids GOODBorrowing to keep poor people from living in squalor or dying from preventable illness BAD

Correct. We should keep poor people from living in squalor or dying via tax revenue. If we keep them from living in squalor/dying via borrowing, we're going to have a heckuva time when we can no longer borrow.

This is a reasonable position. I would argue that we are not funding any of our anti-poverty programs by borrowing. All our anti-poverty programs are covered by taxes, then we borrow money for the portions of the budget that I don't like.

Seriously, how do you decide whether a particular program is funded by borrowing or not?

cameroncrazy1984:Because the points you are making are so blatantly false as to be laughable. It's like trying to explain why 2+2 does not equal 5 to a two year old. You're better off giving them some blocks to play with.

Sure, good answer.

The idea that if you borrow money you should only spend it on worthwhile investments is blatantly false. The idea that if you borrow money you can spend it on literally anything and have no repercussions (except a stronger economy) is a universal truth that we are all born with.

Some people define the value of a good by the amount of money other people are willing to pay for it. Other people define the value of a good by the amount of labor it commands. This is important to the remainder of this discussion.

If you spend money investing in people, developing them into more well-educated citizens who can command better salaries and develop into more awesome constituents, that's a pretty good return on your investment, borrowed money or not.

Zasteva:This is a reasonable position. I would argue that we are not funding any of our anti-poverty programs by borrowing. All our anti-poverty programs are covered by taxes, then we borrow money for the portions of the budget that I don't like.

Seriously, how do you decide whether a particular program is funded by borrowing or not?

We fund X% of our government spending via borrowing. So I say X% of all programs are financed by borrowing. If you have a better way, I'm all ears.

Lord_Baull:PsiChick: You're complaining about something that is working exactly the way it's supposed to.

Which is why republicans are complaining. They can't show the masses how evil, inefficient and useless the government is if it's working.

tbh, they're complaining because they're getting spanked for not doing their homework. At some stage you can't actually stop any consequences ever by screaming "BIAS! BIAS!" at anyone who questions you.

MattStafford:I honestly don't understand how so many people can be so willfully ignorant of an obvious truth. If you borrow money, you better use it for something good, or it is going to suck when you have to pay it back. The fact that you might be a sovereign country has no bearing on that universal, immutable truth.

God help me, Matt and I do agree on a basic principle. This basic principle does not inherently lead me to agree with your proposals about how to fix today's problems, but I will stand up and say that yes, I agree with this statement.

MattStafford:cameroncrazy1984: Because the points you are making are so blatantly false as to be laughable. It's like trying to explain why 2+2 does not equal 5 to a two year old. You're better off giving them some blocks to play with.

Sure, good answer.

The idea that if you borrow money you should only spend it on worthwhile investments is blatantly false. The idea that if you borrow money you can spend it on literally anything and have no repercussions (except a stronger economy) is a universal truth that we are all born with.

That is essentially what you are saying to me.

We'll see if we can't get you closer to the truth of what we're saying to you in this thread. After you answer the question about Value. That answer will determine how I go about explaining what you're missing.

PsiChick:Lord_Baull: PsiChick: You're complaining about something that is working exactly the way it's supposed to.

Which is why republicans are complaining. They can't show the masses how evil, inefficient and useless the government is if it's working.

tbh, they're complaining because they're getting spanked for not doing their homework. At some stage you can't actually stop any consequences ever by screaming "BIAS! BIAS!" at anyone who questions you.

MattStafford:cameroncrazy1984: Because the points you are making are so blatantly false as to be laughable. It's like trying to explain why 2+2 does not equal 5 to a two year old. You're better off giving them some blocks to play with.

Sure, good answer.

The idea that if you borrow money you should only spend it on worthwhile investments is blatantly false. The idea that if you borrow money you can spend it on literally anything and have no repercussions (except a stronger economy) is a universal truth that we are all born with.

That is essentially what you are saying to me.

Actually, I'm confounded by the idea that you can determine which money from the general fund is borrowed verses which money comes from taxes. If you can't (or don't) do that, then you can't determine how much borrowed money is spent on any particular program.

Zasteva:MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because the points you are making are so blatantly false as to be laughable. It's like trying to explain why 2+2 does not equal 5 to a two year old. You're better off giving them some blocks to play with.

Sure, good answer.

The idea that if you borrow money you should only spend it on worthwhile investments is blatantly false. The idea that if you borrow money you can spend it on literally anything and have no repercussions (except a stronger economy) is a universal truth that we are all born with.

That is essentially what you are saying to me.

Actually, I'm confounded by the idea that you can determine which money from the general fund is borrowed verses which money comes from taxes. If you can't (or don't) do that, then you can't determine how much borrowed money is spent on any particular program.

MattStafford:Ctrl-Alt-Del: Borrowing to educate kids GOODBorrowing to keep poor people from living in squalor or dying from preventable illness BAD

Correct. We should keep poor people from living in squalor or dyingeducating kids via tax revenue. If we keep them from living in squalor/dyingeducating kids via borrowing, we're going to have a heckuva time when we can no longer borrow.

I might think it is a good idea for me to live like a king. If I requisition the government for 100 million dollars, and know a senator or two, and they give me that 100 million dollars - financed via borrowing of course - are you saying that it was a smart economic decision?

Oh good christ, here we go. That's even worse than the coconut parable.

Some people define the value of a good by the amount of money other people are willing to pay for it. Other people define the value of a good by the amount of labor it commands. This is important to the remainder of this discussion.

The value of a good or service is dependent on the rate a free market would set for that good or service. Easy to conceptualize wrt a cheeseburger or Xbox, but a bit tougher for something like the Interstate System or a police force.

MattStafford:The value of a good or service is dependent on the rate a free market would set for that good or service.

For too long we seem to have surrendered personal excellence and community value in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product now is over 800 billion dollars a year, but that gross national product, if we judge the United States of America by that, that gross national product counts air pollution, and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic squall. It counts Napalm, and it counts nuclear warheads, and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our city. It counts Whitman's rifles and Speck's Knifes and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet, the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play; it does not include the beauty of our poetry of the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate for the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country it measures everything in short except that which makes life worth while. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans. Robert F. Kennedy 1968

Lord_Baull:PsiChick: Lord_Baull: PsiChick: You're complaining about something that is working exactly the way it's supposed to.

Which is why republicans are complaining. They can't show the masses how evil, inefficient and useless the government is if it's working.

tbh, they're complaining because they're getting spanked for not doing their homework. At some stage you can't actually stop any consequences ever by screaming "BIAS! BIAS!" at anyone who questions you.

Works well for conservatives complaining when the media quotes them.

Which is part of why I'm not too sympathetic to conservatives right about now. With my eight-year-old sister, I tend to let her do what she wants (that isn't life-threatening) and just tell her beforehand what will happen--yes, you can play with glitter, but you have to clean it up. Consequences are part of every action, good or bad. Republicans have been artificially freed from the consequences of their actions socially--shame, group dislike--but now they really can't be freed from it, and they're having to face reality. Sucks to have to learn this in adulthood, but that's life.

MattStafford:Zasteva: This is a reasonable position. I would argue that we are not funding any of our anti-poverty programs by borrowing. All our anti-poverty programs are covered by taxes, then we borrow money for the portions of the budget that I don't like.

Seriously, how do you decide whether a particular program is funded by borrowing or not?

We fund X% of our government spending via borrowing. So I say X% of all programs are financed by borrowing. If you have a better way, I'm all ears.

Okay, so if S is total gov spending, and G is spending on programs that are Good and worth borrowing for, then isn't it fair to say that we need to cut total spending by (S - G) * X? Let's call that C for cuts, ok?

Now our new spending (S1) = (S - C).

Sounds good, we've made the needed cuts, right?

Opps, we are still spending X1% of S1 via borrowing, So: X1% of all programs are financed by borrowing. We have to do the cuts again. And again. And again...

The only way to satisfy you, mathematically speaking, is to have no borrowing at all, or to have only programs that you personally agree with. Wouldn't it be better just to state that up front?

Ctrl-Alt-Del:Correct. We should keep poor people from living in squalor or dyingeducating kids via tax revenue. If we keep them from living in squalor/dying educating kids via borrowing, we're going to have a heckuva time when we can no longer borrow.

You contradict yourself

The difference being, that the educated kids (presumably) will make our economy strong enough that even after paying off the debt, we are better off for that spending. The same cannot be said about welfare.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to educate a kid, and in the future he produces 200 dollars more worth of goods than he otherwise did, that money was well spent. Even after paying down the debt, we're 100 dollars worth of goods stronger.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and give it to a person, he will still produce the same amount of goods in the future. After paying down the debt, we will be in a similar position to where we started, but facing some annoying to severe side effects (depending on how much we spent).

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe:JerseyTim: I feel like we're spending about 99.9% of the time arguing about why there is a sequester and who is responsible and .1% of the time trying to do something about it.

Welcome to the fark politics tab. This is where you're supposed to pick a team (as long it's the Democrats) and beat dead horses while turning a blind eye to what's actually happening. If you hang in this tab long enough you will learn;

A: D=GoodB: R=BadC: Everything is still Bush's faultD: You will be assimilatedE: You will be ostracized if you don't conform to A, B & C not wishing to become D.

Philip Francis Queeg:MattStafford: The value of a good or service is dependent on the rate a free market would set for that good or service.

For too long we seem to have surrendered personal excellence and community value in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product now is over 800 billion dollars a year, but that gross national product, if we judge the United States of America by that, that gross national product counts air pollution, and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic squall. It counts Napalm, and it counts nuclear warheads, and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our city. It counts Whitman's rifles and Speck's Knifes and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet, the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play; it does not include the beauty of our poetry of the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate for the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country it measures everything in short except that which makes life worth while. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans. Robert F. Kennedy 1968

cameroncrazy1984:Cletus C.: CaptainToast: The scary is for how stupid the tag is.

It's kind of scary that the preferred option is to make the cuts as painful as possible.

It's like you don't understand what the sequester was for in the first place.

Hint: that's the entire point of it. To make the cuts so painful that the GOP is forced to be reasonable.

Let me state this as simply as possible. Yes, I understand sequestration was a sort of nuclear option. Yes, I get it.

This thingy here? Well, it's a department saying maybe we can get by with conventional missile attacks, you know, so maybe save some lives. Then, someone saying, no, the nuclear option is what we promised and what we must deliver. Make it hurt.

PsiChick:Lord_Baull: PsiChick: You're complaining about something that is working exactly the way it's supposed to.

Which is why republicans are complaining. They can't show the masses how evil, inefficient and useless the government is if it's working.

tbh, they're complaining because they're getting spanked for not doing their homework. At some stage you can't actually stop any consequences ever by screaming "BIAS! BIAS!" at anyone who questions you.

They also bet this whole sequester thing on having Mitt Romney in the White House this year. They didn't believe Obama would get reelected, nor would they have to deal with the sequester fully implemented. They assumed the economy would stumble and stall long enough for the GOP to win the election, and afterward they'd change up the sequester with a Republican in the White House. They believed the American people would put full blame for the Budget Control Act of 2011 onto Obama and Democrats.

Philip Francis Queeg:For too long we seem to have surrendered personal excellence and community value in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product now is over 800 billion dollars a year, but that gross national product, if we judge the United States of America by that, that gross national product counts air pollution, and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic squall. It counts Napalm, and it counts nuclear warheads, and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our city. It counts Whitman's rifles and Speck's Knifes and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet, the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play; it does not include the beauty of our poetry of the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate for the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country it measures everything in short except that which makes life worth while. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans. Robert F. Kennedy 1968

You can borrow all the money you want to fund our nation's "beauty of our poetry", but I guarantee those poets won't be the one's paying the debt when it comes due.

I have no problem with the government funding any of those things. I have no problem with government funded arts programs, etc. I just have a problem with funding those programs via debt. I'm not sure why it is difficult to understand that paying for art grants with borrowed money isn't a good idea.

Zasteva:The only way to satisfy you, mathematically speaking, is to have no borrowing at all, or to have only programs that you personally agree with. Wouldn't it be better just to state that up front?

/hope you weren't told there would be no math

Yeah - that is exactly what I've stated up front. We should only borrow money on productive programs. Programs that are worthwhile, and make our country stronger - even after we have to pay off the debt.

Ctrl-Alt-Del:MattStafford: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Simple. Imagine two guys on a deserted island. one has a fish, and the other has a coconut. As they are sitting there contemplating the relative strengths of their respective economic positions, a government contractor arrives to build a bridge to another nearby, uninhabited island. "Value" is how much gold bullion each can expect to receive from that contractor for their individual goods

Do you guys honestly not agree with me? That if you borrow money, spending it on consumption is not a good idea? Borrow hundreds of millions of dollars, give it to the population, and pray for economic success? Christ.

Other than George Bush, who did exactly that, who the hell advocates this position? I've certainly never said we should "Borrow hundreds of millions of dollars [and] give it to the population" So it seems like your entire "point" is an argument against a position nobody holds.

MattStafford:Philip Francis Queeg: For too long we seem to have surrendered personal excellence and community value in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product now is over 800 billion dollars a year, but that gross national product, if we judge the United States of America by that, that gross national product counts air pollution, and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic squall. It counts Napalm, and it counts nuclear warheads, and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our city. It counts Whitman's rifles and Speck's Knifes and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet, the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play; it does not include the beauty of our poetry of the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate for the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country it measures everything in short except that which makes life worth while. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans. Robert F. Kennedy 1968

You can borrow all the money you want to fund our nation's "beauty of our poetry", but I guarantee those poets won't be the one's paying the debt when it comes due.

I have no problem with the government funding any of those things. I have no problem with government funded arts programs, etc. I just have a problem with funding those programs via debt. I'm not sure why it is difficult to understand that paying for art grants with borrowed money isn't a good idea.

MattStafford:The difference being, that the educated kids (presumably) will make our economy strong enough that even after paying off the debt, we are better off for that spending. The same cannot be said about welfare.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to educate a kid, and in the future he produces 200 dollars more worth of goods than he otherwise did, that money was well spent. Even after paying down the debt, we're 100 dollars worth of goods stronger.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and give it to a person, he will still produce the same amount of goods in the future. After paying down the debt, we will be in a similar position to where we started, but facing some annoying to severe side effects (depending on how much we spent).

Just to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here, you're assuming there are no spillover effects from a person's choice of consumption. That's a fairly heroic assumption you are making. If you consider the possibility of spillovers, it no longer becomes a black and white issue for the effects of consumption on future growth.

I will admit that the link between consumption and growth is not well understood from the research side, but there have been some recent efforts to study that link, (Gualerzi 2012 and Trezzini 2011). Quite a bit more work needs to be done, but consumption is a notoriously difficult topic to not only research, but also to publish in. Dismissing consumption outright however is probably not the best way to argue your point, since there could be significant positive effects on growth via consumption when considering spillovers (and externalities).

I love the fark politics tab. Especially the "total farkers" It's the only place on the Internet where one can see people writhing in pain over their financial failure in life while spending $5/month to complain about not having any money. Hey? Maybe if you learned a TRADE rather then going to some community college (probably online while eating Cheetos in yer mommy's basement) to earn a worthless "degree", you coulda made something of yourselves? Ever think of that? Or are y'all too good to get yer hands dirty? "But-but-but, I have a degree!" Guess what, stupid? So do the other 150 people who applied for this job. What I need to know is do you have any SKILLS? No? Bye.

MattStafford:Ctrl-Alt-Del: Correct. We should keep poor people from living in squalor or dyingeducating kids via tax revenue. If we keep them from living in squalor/dying educating kids via borrowing, we're going to have a heckuva time when we can no longer borrow.

You contradict yourself

The difference being, that the educated kids (presumably) will make our economy strong enough that even after paying off the debt, we are better off for that spending. The same cannot be said about welfare.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to educate a kid, and in the future he produces 200 dollars more worth of goods than he otherwise did, that money was well spent. Even after paying down the debt, we're 100 dollars worth of goods stronger.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and give it to a person, he will still produce the same amount of goods in the future. After paying down the debt, we will be in a similar position to where we started, but facing some annoying to severe side effects (depending on how much we spent).

Yes, but if you have rampant poor, you wind up with rampant crime. No matter how many cops you throw at the problem, someone gets killed and then you wind up with negative productivity.

If you don't invest in programs to get people off the streets or in better living conditions you have a long term negative effect on the rest of the population.

MattStafford: MattStafford:If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to educate a kid, and in the future he produces 200 dollars more worth of goods than he otherwise did, that money was well spent.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to heal a sick person who is producing nothing, and in the future he produces 200 dollars more worth of goods than he otherwise did, that money was well spent.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to provide preventive healthcare to a person, and in the future he avoids needing 200,000 dollars of emergency procedures as a result of that preventive care, that money was well spent.

MattStafford:If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to educate a kid, and in the future he produces 200 dollars more worth of goods than he otherwise did, that money was well spent. Even after paying down the debt, we're 100 dollars worth of goods stronger.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to educate a kid, but the kid doesn't pay attention because he's farking HUNGRY and malnourished, and his extremely limited prospects in the world due to lack of education lead him to a life of crime and imprisonment costing tens of thousands of dollars per year, that's borrowed money that was just wasted.

Borrowing money to provide needed food or healthcare is neither wiser nor more frivolous than borrowing it to pay for needed education.

MattStafford:Some people define the value of a good by the amount of money other people are willing to pay for it. Other people define the value of a good by the amount of labor it commands. This is important to the remainder of this discussion.

The value of a good or service is dependent on the rate a free market would set for that good or service. Easy to conceptualize wrt a cheeseburger or Xbox, but a bit tougher for something like the Interstate System or a police force.

It sounds like your answer to his question is "amount of money".

I think your answer is fine, but if you rely on the free market to set value then you run into two problems.

1) A true free market requires an absence of both externalized costs and coercion. It also requires that the costs and benefits are known. There are a great many things for which that is not true, especially when you start talking about social programs. Depending on the people involved, it might not even be true for a cheeseburger or an Xbox.

2) Value is different for each person. If it weren't, transactions would never happen. In a free market transaction the trade happens because the Value of the item received is greater than the Value of the item given up, for both parties to the transaction. That can only happen if the Value of at least one of the items is different for both people. So by definition, money can't accurately represent value, it can only approximate it.

MattStafford:BeesNuts: In the context of macroeconomic growth. Big V. Value.

Some people define the value of a good by the amount of money other people are willing to pay for it. Other people define the value of a good by the amount of labor it commands. This is important to the remainder of this discussion.

The value of a good or service is dependent on the rate a free market would set for that good or service. Easy to conceptualize wrt a cheeseburger or Xbox, but a bit tougher for something like the Interstate System or a police force.

OK then. I disagree. I subscribe to the notion that value is determined specifically and only by the amount of labor it commands. Removing money and market rates from the equation. As an example, a crap ton of silver was discovered in the turn of the 18th century as a result of exploration in the America's. Most of this silver found its way back to Europe. Most of Europe's currency was based on silver. As the real amount of silver increased, their currencies deflated relative to the amount of labor they commanded, but not in relation to the market value of silver. Put another way, the amount of labor commanded by a unit of that currency increased while no apparent change in the relationship of the value of the currency and the value of the commodity whence the currency was derived occurred anywhere in Europe. The VALUE of silver would appear to have decreased, in your definition, whereas in mine, the VALUE of silver increased, as the same quantity of silver, represented by a certain quantity of currency, would command a larger amount of labor in the market.

Beef didn't get cheaper. Nor did the labor that produced it. The value of the currency that purchased it however, did.

Police, to use your example, are unproductive labor, in this construction. They provide no value as their economic activity neither increases the value of capital stock by cultivating land or accounts, nor the value of raw goods by turning them into manufactured goods, nor the value of manufactures by transporting them to areas of increased demand.

However, an Interstate System, and the labor that produces it provides direct value to goods by facilitating their transportation to areas of increased demand, the latter method production mentioned above. As a result, it becomes a much more straightforward discussion than the one you are apparently trying to have. I think this is why you stray and are confused. You are working with a faulty definition.

If any of this sounds familiar, it is because I'm not the one who came up with it. Adam "The Father of Capitalism" Smith did.

If *none* of this sounds familiary, I strongly recommend you read Wealth of Nations cover to cover. Wait 6 months. Then read Wealth of Nations cover to cover *again*.

Philip Francis Queeg:Do you produce enough goods to pay off the debt the country has accrues in keeping you in your current state?

I'm not sure why that is relevant.

If the government's investment in the poor lifts that class out of poverty, and they start producing enough goods to pay off that debt, then it was a good use of debt financed government spending. If those people are unable to produce enough goods to pay off that debt, then it was a poor use of debt financed government spending.

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe:I love the fark politics tab. Especially the "total farkers" It's the only place on the Internet where one can see people writhing in pain over their financial failure in life while spending $5/month to complain about not having any money. Hey? Maybe if you learned a TRADE rather then going to some community college (probably online while eating Cheetos in yer mommy's basement) to earn a worthless "degree", you coulda made something of yourselves? Ever think of that? Or are y'all too good to get yer hands dirty? "But-but-but, I have a degree!" Guess what, stupid? So do the other 150 people who applied for this job. What I need to know is do you have any SKILLS? No? Bye.

You sure described absolutely no one in this thread. What are you talking about? Feel better?

KhanAidan:Just to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here, you're assuming there are no spillover effects from a person's choice of consumption. That's a fairly heroic assumption you are making. If you consider the possibility of spillovers, it no longer becomes a black and white issue for the effects of consumption on future growth.

You are correct. It is possible that if the government borrows money and gives it to JoeBlow, and JoeBlow buys an Xbox, Microsoft might use that 100 to invest in new technology, and revolutionize our life. But if you are trying to get me to subscribe to an economic theory, and that assumption is pivotal to the success of your policies, I'm going to keep looking.